1 UKRAINIAN INTEGRAL NATIONALISM AND THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE 1920-30S Oleksandr Zaitsev, Ukrainian Catholic University (Lviv) In 1934, after a series of terrorist attacks carried out by the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) in Galicia, the head of the Greek-Catholic Church (GCC), Metropolitan Andrei Sheptyts’kyi, issued a pastoral letter which sharply condemned “the criminal deeds of Ukrainian terrorists”.1 It was the highest point in the conflict between the Greek- Catholic Church and the revolutionary Nationalist movement.2 Why did the conflict arise? The most obvious answer is: because the Church could not condone violence and murder. But this is only part of the truth. Although there are numerous studies on the history of radical Ukrainian Nationalism and the GCC, the ‘uncomfortable’ aspects of their relations still await special research. In full accordance with Ernest Renan’s famous aphorism, 3 nationalist historians directly resorted to selective emphasis or ‘forgetting’ of historical events: they preferred to write about how the Church supported the struggle for liberation and about the clergy participation in the Nationalist movement, but quite understandably avoided discussing the conflict between the OUN and the Church. 4 In the depiction of Soviet historians, “the criminal activities of Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists always found support on the part of the Uniate Church,” whose head, “the Trojan horse of Vatican” count Sheptyts’kyi, was the nationalists’ spiritual father.5 No conflicts between the ‘father’ and the ‘children’ were mentioned. Ironically, in this respect the approaches of the nationalist historians and their Soviet counterparts – leaving 1 Andrei Sheptyts’kyi, Pastyrs’ki poslannia, vol. 2: 1918-1939 , 2009, Andrei, Lviv, p. 177-178. 2 In this article, the words ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Nationalist’ are capitalised when related to the organised Ukrainian integral nationalist movement, especially the OUN. 3 “Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation, which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a danger for [the principle of] nationality” (Ernest Renan, ‘What Is a Nation?’, in: Homi K. Bhabha (ed.), Nation and Narration , 1990, Routledge, London-New York, p. 11). 4 See e. g. Petro Mirchuk, Narys istorii OUN. 1920-1939 roky , 2007 (3°), Ukrains’ka vydavnycha spilka, Kyiv. 5 Volodymyr Zamlyns’kyi, Shlyakh chornoi zrady , 1969, Kameniar, Lviv, p. 38-39. ZAYTSEV: Ukrainian Integral Nationalism 2 aside their propagandist rhetoric – were quite similar. The old conception of an alliance between the GCC and extreme nationalism did not disappear with the collapse of the Soviet historical school and found an interesting continuation in an article by Ukrainian political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov, published in a special issue of a solid Anglophone journal (the issue was later republished as a book). Shekhovtsov tries to prove several key theses: 1) Dontsov’s and the OUN’s Ukrainian Nationalism was a variety of fascism; 2) the GCC was dominated by a trend favouring an alliance with Ukrainian fascism in order to destroy communism and considered the OUN as a tool for the expansion of Greek-Catholicism towards the East; 3) there also existed an influential group of ‘clerical fascists’ (Fr. Mykola Conrad and other proponents of ‘Christian nationalism’) who sought not only an alliance but also a synthesis of Ukrainian Catholicism and fascism. 6 In Shekhovtsov’s article there are many correct observations, for example, that the main stumbling block in the relations between the Church and Ukrainian Nationalism was the Nationalists’ insistence upon replacing the idea of God by that of the nation or, in other words, the tendency to create a political religion. There is also some truth in the thesis that a part of the clergy considered an alliance with Nationalism on the platform of anti-communism and anti-liberalism both feasible and desirable. 7 However, in proving the existence of Ukrainian ‘clerical fascism’, the author resorted to rather selective quotation of sources and arbitrary interpretations. I will not enumerate all the inaccuracies present in his article, but I have to point out the saddest mistake which unfairly tarnishes Metropolitan Sheptyts’kyi. Seeking to prove the thesis of ‘double standards’ of the GCC’s highest hierarchy which, according to Shekhovtsov, blessed the bloody nationalist struggle against communism, the author gives the following quotation, allegedly from an article by Sheptyts’kyi: “All laws which are offensive to the laws of God and nature, all the laws which are unjust and harmful for citizens and people, are not obligatory in the context of Catholic doctrine [...] Ukrainian nationalism must be ready to use all means of fighting against communism, not excluding mass physical extermination, even at the cost of millions of human lives.”8 6 Anton Shekhovtsov, ‘By Cross and Sword: ‘Clerical Fascism’ in Interwar Western Ukraine’, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 8/2, 2007, p. 271-285 (reprinted in: Matthew Feldman/Marius Turda/Tudor Georgescu (eds.), Clerical Fascism in Interwar Europe , 2008, Routledge, London, p. 59-73). 7 Shekhovtsov, ‘By Cross and Sword’, op. cit., p. 280-281. 8 Cited in Shekhovtsov, ‘By Cross and Sword’, op. cit., p. 279. 3 ZAYTSEV: Ukrainian Integral Nationalism The first sentence of this quotation is really taken from the Metropolitan’s article ‘The Ukrainian Catholic Union and Politics’,9 while the second one comes from an editorial article which was published in the next issue of Meta [‘The Goal’] newspaper and bore no relation to Sheptyts’kyi. 10 On the whole, in my opinion, the author failed to prove convincingly any of his main theses. In sum, it can be said that previous studies on the issue of the GCC’s relationship with Ukrainian integral nationalism and the latter’s attitude to religion were either biased or, even if adopting an impartial point of view, still failed to account for the fact that Ukrainian integral nationalism itself showed a tendency to transform into a political religion whose adherents were inclined to consider the Church as a dangerous rival and met a similar attitude on the part of the Church. In this article I will try to apply Emilio Gentile’s theory of political religion and Roger Griffin’s conception of ‘palingenetic ultra-nationalism’ to the study of Ukrainian integral nationalism and its relations with the GCC. 11 Although both theories were developed in the study of fascism, they can be equally useful for the investigation of various ultra-nationalist movements, even those which never obtained power. Nationalism as Religion Some contemporary observers and later researchers regarded interwar Ukrainian integral nationalism, whose main manifestations in the 1920-30s were the ‘active nationalism’ of political writer Dmytro Dontsov and the ‘organised nationalism’ represented by the ideology and practice of the OUN, as a variety of fascism. Indeed, it had much in common with fascism, including attempts to create a political religion, and met some generally accepted definitions of fascism, e. g. Roger Griffin’s famous definition: “Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.” 12 9 Mytropolyt Andrei [Sheptyts’kyi], ‘Ukrains’kyi Katolyts’kyi Soiuz i polityka’, Meta 14, April 10, 1932. 10 ‘Vahannia i vyrivniuvannia. Uvahy do pytan’ ukrains’koi polityky’, Meta 15, April 17, 1932. 11 See Emilio Gentile, The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy , 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.); ‘The Sacralisation of Politics: Definitions, Interpretations and Reflections on the Question of Secular Religion and Totalitarianism’, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1/1, 2000, p. 18-55; Politics as Religion , 2006, Princeton University Press, Princeton- Oxford; Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism , 1993, Routledge, London; ‘Cloister or Cluster? The Implications of Emilio Gentile’s Ecumenical Theory of Political Religion for the Study of Extremism’, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 6/1, 2005, p. 32-52; and Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler , 2007, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 12 Griffin, The Nature of Fascism , op. cit., p. 44. ZAYTSEV: Ukrainian Integral Nationalism 4 However, unlike fascism, Ukrainian integral nationalism was an ideology of a stateless nation. Its closest ‘ideological relative’ in Europe was the Croatian Ustaša before its transformation into a state party. 13 Some scholars believe that the Ustaša was a fascist movement from the very beginning. 14 But in my opinion, the ultra-nationalist organisations of stateless peoples like the OUN, the Ustaša and so on constitute a separate genus of political movements and respective ideologies, different both from fascism and from the democratic trend in the national liberation movement. Unfortunately, there is no special term in political science for this kind of movements. Without being peremptory, I would suggest that the proper designation for the ideology and practice of the OUN and similar movements is not fascism, but rather ‘ustashism’, which can be defined as revolutionary integral nationalism developing under conditions of perceived foreign oppression and using violence for the purpose of liberating the nation and creating an independent authoritarian state. Ustashism did share some essential